The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance and recognized that the plaintiff 1 was negligent in this accident and determined the amount of damages by the defendants. According to the records, the bridge for the seriousness of the plaintiff 1's negligence is reasonable, and the court below did not explain the reasons different from the judgment of the court of first instance as to the scope of consideration when admitting the judgment of the court of first instance as to the plaintiff 1's negligence like the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the court below did not explain the reasons different from the judgment of the court

With respect to the second ground:

The purport of Article 13(1) of the Conflict of Laws that provides that the law applicable to illegal acts in this area shall be governed by the law of the place where the cause occurred, taking into account the social conditions in which illegal acts occurred, shall be deemed to be reasonable and real from the perspective of equity, rather than applying and handling domestic laws generally, and it shall be deemed to correspond to the expectation of the parties. Therefore, in the case where both parties are nationals of the Republic of Korea, the place where the cause of the cause occurred is simply friendly and formal meaning, it shall be reasonable to deem that there is no reasonable ground to deal with the above conflict of laws in general. Thus, in the case where both parties are the nationals of the Republic of Korea, the tort in this case, which is the cause of the claim in this case, is only a car country where the place of the occurrence, the perpetrator, and the plaintiff 1, the victim, all of whom are Korean citizens, and the defendant 1, the defendant 1, who is a Korean company, shall be employed by the defendants, and at the same time, be treated as the accident in this case where the defendant 2000 days occurred.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that maintained the decision of the court of first instance that held to the same purport is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the conflict of laws theory.

With respect to the third point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court of first instance does not regard the public, large and small joint venture office office from the defendant company as a separate association independent of the defendant company, and it is concluded that the defendant company with the purpose of construction and sub-construction is one office under the principle of joint order, joint construction and equal profit distribution and loss apportionment (However, according to the records, the witness ○○○ appears to be the witness 2-, and the witness △△△△, the plaintiff company's 2) jointly established with the aim of meeting the ability and requirements for large construction for the middle-scale expansion of construction (the witness ○○ appears to be the witness 2-, and the witness △△△△△, the above dispositions of the court below are sufficiently acceptable, and there is no error of law as to the

Therefore, this case's appeal is without merit, and therefore dismissed under Articles 400, 395, and 384, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the burden of litigation costs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Hah-hak (Presiding Justice)